Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 8 recite limitations of less than 100 hours and less than 10 hours, examiner notes these limitations include 0 hours, this is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohler (US PG Pub 2018/0201528).
With respect to claim 1, Mohler teaches a process dewatering mineral suspensions, suitable for treatment of material resulting from mineral processing, in particular, oil sands tailings, often waste material consists of an aqueous slurry or sludge comprising particulate material, for instance clay, shale, sand, grit, metal oxides, etc. mixed with water and possibly residual hydrocarbons, comprising one or more low molecular mass polyethylene glycol (abstract, 0001-0019, a process for treating tailings), polymers may be applied to an aqueous suspension of the particulate mineral material as it is transferred as a fluid to a deposition area, suspended solids may be concentrated in a thickener (0023-0024), the tailings may have solids content in the range 5 percent to 80 percent by weight, for instance 25 percent to 40% (0030, 0058, providing tailings for treatment having at least 10 wt% solids, based on a total weight of the tailings), the mixture of polymers is preferably in an aqueous solution (0028, 0050, non-dispersion liquid flocculant), low molecular mass of polyethylene glycol (PEG) of 100-1000 g/mol (0042, that includes a polyethylene glycol having a weight average molecular weight from 100 g/mol to 2,000 g/mol), and transfer to a deposition area (0034-0038, flowing the treated mixture from the mixing apparatus for further treatment or to a disposal area).
Mohler teaches treatment of the suspension can be at any suitable point, before treatment in a thickener, typically by pumping, and the polymers can be mixed with the material prior to, during, or after pumping, or via in-line addition to the flowing slurry and dosing of the polymer can be close to where the material flows from the thickener (implying a first inlet for feeding the tailings, and a dosing inlet or second inlet for feeding the polymer mixture (0036-0037, in-line addition at least providing an apparatus (the conduit) and continuously mixing in the apparatus), while Mohler does not explicitly teach the recited inlets, as Mohler teaches a conduit for the tailings and in-line introduction of the polymer, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, may envisage that feed and polymer inlets are included in the system to introduce the feed and polymer into the conduit. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include feed and polymer inlets in order to introduce the tailings and polymer into the conduit.
With respect to claim 2, the process as claimed in claim 1 is taught above. Mohler teaches polymers preferably in an aqueous solution (0028, 0050, the non-dispersion liquid flocculant excludes any hydrated solid flocculants).
With respect to claim 3, the process as claimed in claim 1, Mohler teaches in comparative example B wherein the non-dispersion liquid flocculant excludes any poly(ethylene oxide)(co)polymer that has a number average molecular weight of at least 100,000 Da (0059).
With respect to claim 4 the process as claimed in claim1 is taught above. Mohler teaches the weight average molecular weight of the polyethylene glycol is from 100 g/mol to 700 g/mol (0042).
With respect to claim 5 the process as claimed in claim 1 is taught above. Mohler teaches the amount of PEG in the polymer mixture is 1-99% (0047-0048), and in comparative example B wherein the non-dispersion liquid flocculant consists essentially of the polyethylene glycol and optionally water (0059).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the process as claimed claim 1 is taught above. See 112(b) rejection above. Mohler teaches rheological characteristics of the material as it flows are important, since any significant reduction in flow characteristics could seriously impair the efficiency of the process (0038-0040) and the material settles in the deposition area, but remains fluid and pumpable during the transfer stage until the material is allowed to stand, and in some cases the aqueous suspension may be transferred first to a holding vessel before being transferred to the deposition area (0024).
Mohler does not teach for a period of less than 100 hours after flowing the treated mixture from the mixing apparatus, the treated mixture is storage stable such that there is 1.5 wt% or less difference in solids content (examiner notes less than 100 hours includes 0 hours), and for a period of at least 500 hours after flowing the treated mixture from the mixing apparatus, the treated mixture has a difference in solids content that is 5 wt% or greater. However, examiner notes "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. A “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP §2111.04). Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, the fact that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance because the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency."
With respect to claim 8, the process as claimed claim 1 is taught above. Mohler teaches treated material can then be sent to a pit, sloped surface or further treated in a filter press, belt press or centrifuge before placement in a disposal area (0024, 0037) the treated mixture is flowed from the mixing apparatus to further treatment in a centrifuge, thickener, or accelerated dewatering cell and then is flowed from the centrifuge, thickener, or accelerated dewatering cell to the disposal area.
With respect to claim 9, the process as claimed claim 1, Mohler teaches oil sands tailings (abstract), the tailings are oil sands tailings.
With respect to claim 10, Mohler teaches the process of treating tailings of claim 1 as discussed above, providing treated tailings from oil sands.
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohler (US PG Pub 2018/0201528), in view of Sohling (US PG Pub 2008/0269100) and Yong (US 4,399,038).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the process as claimed claim 1 is taught above. See 112(b) rejection above. Mohler teaches rheological characteristics of the material as it flows are important, since any significant reduction in flow characteristics could seriously impair the efficiency of the process (0038-0040) and the material settles in the deposition area, but remains fluid and pumpable during the transfer stage until the material is allowed to stand, and in some cases the aqueous suspension may be transferred first to a holding vessel before being transferred to the deposition area (0024).
Mohler does not teach for a period of less than 100 hours after flowing the treated mixture from the mixing apparatus, the treated mixture is storage stable such that there is 1.5 wt% or less difference in solids content (examiner notes less than 100 hours includes 0 hours), and for a period of at least 500 hours after flowing the treated mixture from the mixing apparatus, the treated mixture has a difference in solids content that is 5 wt% or greater. However, examiner notes "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. A “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP §2111.04). Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, the fact that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance because the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency."
Alternatively, dewatering of mineral suspensions, often waste material consists of an aqueous slurry or sludge comprising particulate material, for instance clay, mixed with water using one or more low molecular mass polyethylene glycol (abstract, 0001-0019), the amount of PEG in the polymer mixture is 1-99% (0047-0048).
Sohling teaches treating slurries comprising at least 10% silicates, for example bentonite clays, with low molecular weight polyethylene glycol, and there is a need to provide slurries with high silicate content and good storage stability (0001-0015) slurry is understood to be any dispersion or suspension of at least one silicate in a liquid medium, and the use of at least one polyethylene glycol with quite a low molecular weight can afford a highly concentrated and highly storage-stable slurry of the at least one silicate (0026-0027), with polyethylene glycol with relatively low mean molecular weight it is possible to obtain slurries having a relatively high content (10% by weight or more) of silicate which avoid the problems of a rise in viscosity or gel formation and enable storage-stable highly concentrated slurries (0038-0039).
Sohling teaches polyethylene glycols with higher molecular weights increase viscosity (0038, 0070), where the dispersions are still pumpable and the viscosity behavior remains storage-stable within a period of days and weeks (0029), and embodiments where teach for a period of less than 100 hours after flowing the treated mixture from the mixing apparatus, the treated mixture is storage stable such that there is 1.5 wt% or less difference in viscosity (examiner notes less than 100 hours, less than 10 hours, includes 0 hours), and for a period of at least 500 hours after flowing the treated mixture from the mixing apparatus, the treated mixture has a difference in solids content that is 5 wt% or greater, and for a period of less than 10 hours after flowing the treated mixture from the mixing apparatus, the treated mixture is storage stable such that there is 0.6 wt% or less difference in solids content (Examples 0060-0081). While Sohiling does not explicitly teach changes in solids content, Yong teaches methods for dewatering tailings (abstract), and that viscosity is directly related to fines content (C3/L17-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Mohler’s taught method comprising treating tailings with clays with low molecular weight polyethylene glycol, would exhibit similar storage stability and solids content to that described by Sohling, as the use of polyethylene glycol for forming storage stable highly concentrated slurries is known in the art as shown by Sohling, and Sohling’s taught viscosity directly correlates with solids content as shown by Yong.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Melbuchi US 2022/0002610 stable high solids slurries
Staker US 4,793,826 coal slurries, PEG, storage
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1777 /VICKIE Y KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1777